Table 1 Free-Labeling Results: Study 1.

From: Emotion Perception in Hadza Hunter-Gatherers

Coded Response	Facial Configurations
Coded Response	Scowl	Nose-Wrinkle	Wide-Eyed Gasp	Smile	Pout	Wide-Eyed
	Hadza (N = 43*)
Anger	0.67^a [0.51 0.79]	0.17 [0.08 0.31]	0.21 [0.11 0.36]	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.26 [0.15 0.41]	0.12 [0.05 0.25]
Disgust	0	0^b	0.05 [0 0.17]	0	0	0
Fear	0	0	0.07^b [0.02 0.2]	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]
Happy	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.05 [0 0.16]	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0.44^a [0.3 0.59]	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0.15 [0.07 0.29]
Sad	0	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0.12^b [0.05 0.25]	0
Surprised	0	0	0.12 [0.05 0.26]	0	0	0.15^b [0.07 0.29]
χ²	133.41***	19**	10.65^†	88.60***	29.95***	14.67*
ϕ_c	0.80	0.30	0.23	0.64	0.37	0.27
Other Mental	0.17 [0.08 0.31]	0.39 [0.26 0.54]	0.24 [0.14 0.4]	0.12 [0.05 0.25]	0.12 [0.05 0.25]	0.2 [0.1 0.34]
Lash out	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0	0	0
Withdraw	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]	0	0	0
Escape	0	0	0	0	0	0
Affiliate	0	0	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]
Laugh/Smile	0	0	0.15 [0.07 0.29]	0.58 [0.43 0.72]	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.10 [0.03 0.23]
Cry	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.17 [0.08 0.32]	0.07 [0.02 0.2]	0	0.42 [0.28 0.57]	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]
χ²	4.00	35.00***	17.60*	125.00***	77.80***	12.00^†
ϕ_c	0.15	0.46	0.33	0.85	0.67	0.27
Other Actions	0.26 [0.15 0.41]	0.22 [0.12 0.37]	0.24 [0.14 0.4]	0.05 [0 0.16]	0.16 [0.08 0.3]	0.41 [0.28 0.57]
Constrict Orifices	0	0	0	0	0	0
Olfaction	0	0	0	0	0	0
Vomit	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]
Wide Eyes/Visual Monitoring	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wide Eyes/See Unexpected	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]	0	0	0.05 [0 0.17]
Vision	0	0.05 [0 0.17]	0.15 [0.07 0.29]	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.10 [0.03 0.23]
χ²	—	10.00	20.50***	—	5.00	12.00^†
ϕ_c	—	0.22	0.32	—	0.15	0.24
Threatening	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dominance	0	0	0	0	0	0
Aversive Food Warn	0	0	0	0	0	0
Distasteful Idea/Behavior Warn	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.14]	0	0	0	0
Alert to Threat	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0
Aggressor Appeasement	0	0	0	0	0	0
No Threat	0	0	0	0.05 [0 0.16]	0	0
Appease/Extract Sympathy	0	0	0	0	0	0
	US (N = 45)
Anger	0.69^a [0.54 0.81]	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0
Disgust	0	0.69^a [0.54 0.81]	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0	0	0
Fear	0	0.13 [0.06 0.27]	0.67^a [0.52 0.79]	0	0	0.11 [0.04 0.24]
Happy	0	0	0	0.78^a [0.64 0.88]	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.07 [0.02 0.19]
Sad	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0	0	0.76^a [0.61 0.86]	0
Surprised	0	0	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0	0	0.76^a [0.61 0.86]
χ²	148.38***	110.90***	112.03***	175.00***	163.34***	128.00***
ϕ_c	0.81	0.70	0.71	0.88	0.85	0.75
Other Mental	0.24 [0.14 0.39]	0.09 [0.03 0.21]	0.13 [0.06 0.27]	0.18 [0.09 0.32]	0.22 [0.12 0.36]	0.04 [0 0.16]
Lash out	0	0	0	0	0	0
Withdraw	0	0	0.04 [0 0.16]	0	0	0
Escape	0	0	0	0	0	0
Affiliate	0	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0
Laugh/Smile	0	0	0	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0	0
Cry	0	0	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0
χ²	—	—	10.00	11.00^†	5.00	—
ϕ_c	—	—	0.24	0.25	0.17	—
Other Actions	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0.04 [0 0.16]	0.07 [0.02 0.19]	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.04 [0 0.16]	0.04 [0 0.16]
Constrict Orifices	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0	0
Olfaction	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0	0
Vomit	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wide Eyes/Visual Monitoring	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wide Eyes/See Unexpected	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]
Vision	0	0	0	0	0	0
χ²	—	4.00	5.00	—	—	10.00
ϕ_c	—	0.13	0.15	—	—	0.21
Threatening	0	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0
Dominance	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0	0	0
Aversive Food Warn	0	0	0	0	0	0
Distasteful Idea/Behavior Warn	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0	0	0
Alert to Threat	0	0	0	0	0	0
Aggressor Appeasement	0	0	0	0	0	0
No Threat	0	0	0	0.02 [−0.01 0.13]	0	0
Appease/Extract Sympathy	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note. Proportion of coded responses provided by participants for each facial configuration in the US and Hadza samples with 95% Agresti-Coull Confidence Intervals in brackets; CI for US 0 frequency cells: [−0.02, 0.09]; CI for Hadza 0 frequency cells: [−0.02, 0.10]. Responses along the main diagonals are consistent with theoretical predictions for universal emotion or feature labeling. Cochran’s Q and McNemar pairwise comparisons were computed for the data represented along the diagonal for each cultural context separately, with superscripts indicating which responses (within culture) are statistically different from one another. χ² goodness-of-fit tests are reported for each column, within each code type (again, within each cultural group). p-values are based on Monte-Carlo simulations with 10,000 replicates. Significant χ² goodness-of-fit tests indicate that the distribution of a given response feature was not uniform across the codes for a given facial configuration. ^†p ≤ 0.10. *p ≤ 0.05. ** p ≤ 0.01. *** p ≤ 0.001. Bolded proportions indicate facial configurations for which a given coded response was characteristic for that facial configuration (defined as greater than two standardized residuals based on the χ² goodness-of-fit test; after Crivelli et al., 2017). Dashes indicate rows for which a χ² test could not be computed because no responses were coded consistent with the feature. No χ² test was computed for the social communication codes (final block of the US and Hadza portions of the table) due to low frequencies of the response feature and low reliability in coding. *Note that the the Hadza dataset contains variable number of participants across target facial configurations (N_scowl = 42, N_nose-wrinkle = 41, N_{wide-eyed gasp} = 41, N_smile = 43, N_pout = 43, N_wide-eyed = 41) due to a subset of responses for which a reliable translation could not be achieved (see Supplementary Information for more details).

Back to article page

Table 1 Free-Labeling Results: Study 1.

Search

Quick links